Turkish Military’s Influence Rises Again
wsj.com
wsj.com
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low-flying...
Something huge is happening. EVERYBODY in Turkey is watching the news at the moment. The military is rushing in every major news station, there are battles between the police and the military, every flight in istanbul is cancelled and the two bridges to europe in istanbul are closed by the military. So much going on. I don't know if the people there are happy, unsure or feared of the situation. BUT: it's a weird coup: no massive presence of the military on the street like you would suspect. Just at some major places like the palace in ankara and the mentioned bridges. To repeat me. This is by far the best newsfeed in english: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low-flying...
Still a huge lag to the turkish sources but at least.. I for myself get my news and information from good friends and their whatsapp groups. And it is so terrifying.
The prime minister said this a couple of days ago. A huge shift in policy and now suddenly a coup. I'm guessing Erdogan saw the writing on the wall and tried to shift gears, but it seems the military went ahead with the coup anyway.
> The military has had a record of intervening in politics. Indeed, it assumed power for several periods in the latter half of the 20th century. It executed coups d'état in 1960, in 1971, and in 1980. Most recently, it maneuvered the removal of an Islamic-oriented prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, in 1997.
> On 27 April 2007, in advance of 4 November 2007 presidential election, and in reaction to the politics of Abdullah Gül, who has a past record of involvement in Islamist political movements and banned Islamist parties such as the Welfare Party, the army issued a statement of its interests. It said that the army is a party to "arguments" regarding secularism; that Islamism ran counter to the secular nature of the Turkish Republic, and to the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The Army's statement ended with a clear warning that the Turkish Armed Forces stood ready to intervene if the secular nature of the Turkish Constitution is compromised, stating that "the Turkish Armed Forces maintain their sound determination to carry out their duties stemming from laws to protect the unchangeable characteristics of the Republic of Turkey. Their loyalty to this determination is absolute.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Turkey#Military_in...
Usually it's something that takes place when the military itself is getting infiltrated and it either needs to act or be taken over by the ideology itself.
Usually when the military sides with religious people, it's a sign of a weak state.
Gulen's followers represent a large portion of Turkey's police and attorneys, at least before the latest moves of President Erdogan.
Current Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan used the Gulen movement as allies to gain power, as they both shared the goal of abolishing the existing secular character of the state.
However, once in power, Erdogan turned on Gulen, attempted to purge his followers from the police and judiciary, then used the movement as a "fifth-column" type scapegoat.
Recently, Erdogan has moved to consolidate power, taking steps that would allow him to cow the legislative and judicial branches. It appears he was trying to install himself as "President for Life."
It's very important to note that secularism in Turkey was born at the point of a bayonet. In contrast to many regional Islamic governments, Turkey's government is both secular and democratic, due to the founding father of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. While Ataturk was a brutal dictator, he also used that power to rebuild a Turkish national identity, secularize the government, and eventually transition to democracy.
Turkey's secular and Westernized form of government facilitated its membership within NATO. NATO, an organization designed to contain Soviet influence, has been very uneasy with Erdogan heading a state that can invoke Article 5 of the collective defense pact. In particular, his recent moves of downing a Russian fighter, have made tensions rise.
While events are in flux, and precise reasons for the coup are unclear, Erdogan did announce yesterday that he was realigning himself with the government of Assad in Syria, a Russian ally, which could be seen as anti-NATO. However Turkish institutions and governance are so severely degraded that domestic reasons could be purely to blame.
What about the people?! Erdogan received a huge win in the latest elections AFAIK. I mean you can what you want about the man, but there's no European politician that comes close to his numbers in terms of vote percentage.
The november elections had its share of problems [1], but ultimately saw the AKP return to a 50% share.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_during_the_Turki...
interesting how, like in Egypt, an army taking down democratically elected president is a "return to the western society again"
Turkey and Thailand are out of the line here. Normaly a military putsch is considered undemocratic, but in those 2 not.
NATO member, EU associate.
> At the National Security Council (MGK) meeting on 28 February 1997, the generals submitted their views on issues regarding secularism and political Islam on Turkey to the government. The MGK made several decisions during this meeting, and Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan from the Welfare Party was forced to sign the decisions, some of which were:
* Eight years of primary school education
* Shutting down many religious schools opened during his term
* Abolition of Tarikats (sectarian groups)
I'd be expecting those demands from a liberal group, not the military! :)
Given the rate at which Erdogan has supposedly already replaced kemalists in the military leadership, i wonder if this might actually be a false flag operation to lure the last remaining critics into the light and in front of courts. That would certainly be an effective way to finally break any risk of armed defense of the constitution.
Isn't Erdogan noturious for consolidating his power by putting his people in all branches of government including the military?
Is all of the military loyal to the coup makers?
If the connections between Erdogan and Islamic State are real; then ousting Erdogan through a coup sends more powerful people, money, public sympathy in the way of IS.
The military and old elite in Turkey are very corrupt, but they've never squashed freedom of press the same way Erdogan has. If you believe in personal liberty, the military is actually better than the democratically elected strongman, however absurd that sounds.
I am almost sure it has the blessing of Washington. Also Erdogan wormed his relations with Putin recently.
it seems incredibly unwise to me, given its a Muslim country bordering ISIS, Syria, Iraq. and its a Muslim country with a known history of coups. a messy/failed coup attempt could degrade into a civil war, or, continuing anarchy. in such a situation, I can picture scenarios where the US nukes at Incirlik fall into the hands of... people who may wish us harm. For example, ISIS or another terror group.
I think the US gov does lots of dangerously irresponsible things, this is just the latest example of one of them being brought into sharp focus.
Given that this is an event of legitimate importance to some people here (albeit an off topic subject for HN) I would personally encourage people to leave this specific thread alone and hide it rather than flag it, since it's flown under the radar (and every other thread is bound to be flagged to oblivion.)
edit: looks like the mods unflagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12103575
On / Off topic isn't about how much tech is in the story.
Turkey’s Army Says It Seized Power as Premier Vows to Resist
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-15/turkish-pr...
Many posters in here indicate oddness that a military force could represent secularism. I am curious why that is. Most uniformed militaries I have observed have always seemed more secular than the people they represent. Let us not forget the Islamic Brotherhood was democratically elected in Egypt, which attempted to instill sharia law. A military coup ended that nonsense. Also, Hitler was democratically elected and was not immediately supported by the military.
If you fail, it's very, very often fatal. If you succeed, you retrofit some sketchy legal justification, or ignore the matter altogether.
True, but...
> but they don't swear an oath to other officers or elected officials.
... this part is, interestingly true, but only of officers. Officers don't swear an oath to other offices or elected officials, but enlisted personnel do both -- first to the President and second to the officers appointed over them, and all subject to the UCMJ. [0]
Not, of course, that oaths constrain behavior, but, to the extent oaths are relevant, in any case, the Constitution names the President Commander-in-Chief of the military and gives Congress the power to regulate the military, so an oath by a military member to support the Constitution necessarily involves a degree of commitment to elected officials, and to the extent those elected officials have used their Conditional powers to establish and appoint superior officers, those other officers.
There was a strong distrust of a professional military.
The U.S. has a built-in coup mechanism: the president effectively serves at the convenience of Congress. While he/she is an elected official and in a different branch of government, the constitution was pretty clear on who runs the show. The House and Senate can, at any time, remove the president from office.
It'd be a helluva thing to do, but military coups are fairly spectacular also. On any given day that both houses were in session, given a hated enough president, you could probably do the entire thing on a voice vote in an hour or so. At that point the military and police authorities would be responsible for removing the president and swearing in the new one.
You might be able to spin out some scenarios for a U.S. coup d'etat, but there is a very long line of tradition in the states that the military serves the civilian authority. I think most command-level officers are fairly well indoctrinated in avoiding that scenario at all costs.
My hypothesis is that the average English speaking tech worker is both more secular than their nation's population and more secular than their nation's military, making it more difficult to think of militaries as secular organizations. I know I tend to think of the U.S. military as full of religious conservatives, but that probably says more about how secular I am than about how religious the military is.
I guess it will be pretty effective, but vaguely technical users will still be able to communicate.
Using Hotspot Shield to bypass any possible blocking. Latest installed legislation granted the government to slow down/entirely block any destination IP they want without notice.
I was in southern Turkey in 2010, and one thing that did felt "strange" back then was the ban of sites like youtube. That is plain unacceptable for a modern state at the door of Europe. I guess that's what happens when religion gets mixed with politics and people think that they know what is best for you!
There's currently limited information, but I really hope that things turn out for the best there!
No real need to. Last info I got on it was that airports were closed.
Good luck.
Stay safe.
Such an asshole. People fighting against military. Is this what he wants to happen in order to continue his dictatorship?
Turkey still has a functioning democracy, true, current government is shit, but they but your portrayal is actually inaccurate.
Military coups / rule is horrible. They only bring terrible pain to people.
Army now controls airports, bridges, and TV station.
HN article on coup flagged.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12103575
On a sidenote, one of the conflict parties has blocked access to the major social networks; it is yet unclear who did it. If anyone here is in Turkey, use TOR, it is reported to work.
Recep -> Rejep
Necmettin -> Nejmettin
etc
So I guess, yea, "j" as in John.
"j" is a silent consonant in all Roman and Germanic languages (i.e. most of mainland Europe). It's only in English that "y" has taken over that role (otherwise, "y" is a vowel -- like in English words ending in -ey).
The symbol "j" has that same silent role in IPA, that's why I was confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximant_consonant
I am sitting at Bodrum airport located southwestern in Turkey when writing this. Everything is quiet here and the planes apear to go as normal.
I hope they don't get drawn into that mess.
Not something anyone would design, but seems to work better than most countries in the region.
Update: Government TV station off air. President calling on people to take to the streets. Military declaring curfew.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-co...
If you want to get away from live/sensational news, rumors and dangerous debates it makes sense to wait a few days before starting a discussion on the subject. So why moderating the french attack and not this?
“The Government of Turkey had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and individual members of the United States Congress.”
I suppose I shouldn't expect journalism from the wsj.
Edit: Sibel Edmonds called it 6 months ago: https://youtu.be/OxvPfWkYyUo